in association with the kent & east sussex railway...

IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE KENT & EAST SUSSEX RAILWAY

Patrons: Gregory Barker MP, Chris Green MA FCIT

ROBERTSBRIDGE (RVR) STATION, STATION ROAD,

ROBERTSBRIDGE, EAST SUSSEX. TN32 5DG Tel: 01580 881833 Fax: 0870 916 6976

Registration Number: 2613553

John Henderson, NDD SE Assistant Asset Manager Highways Agency Federated House London Road Dorking RH4 1SZ

11

th February 2013

Dear Mr Henderson.

Rother Valley Railway – A21 Level Crossing Scheme

Consultation Response We are please to enclose our consultation response compiled on our behalf by Mott MacDonald. That in reply to Glen Thompson’s letter of 4

th May 2012 and your

subsequent comments received by email on 14th

September 2012. Our response to your points follows the consultation procedure laid down by the lead Government Authority The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR). That process for consultation when seeking Powers to Construct and Operate a railway level crossing is detailed in Office of the Rail Regulator document: ‘Level Crossings: A guide for managers, designers and operators. Railway Safety Publication No. 7. December 2011’. In addition to the points you have raised, and that we have covered in the Mott MacDonald response report attached, you also sought clarification in two further matters:

Supply information on what protection the Highways Agency would have in the event that Rother Valley Railway ceased trading, particularly in respect of the ongoing maintenance or eventual removal of the proposed level crossing.

Response: RVR could arrange in consultation with the Office of the Rail Regulator for a provision to require the railway operator to have in place such protection by way of such as a charge of the railway assets to the estimated cost of removing the rails etc from the crossing and resurfacing the road as a normal carriageway. In any event those works would be a relatively straightforward task and not envisaged to be significantly expensive.

Supply information on the proposed public liability insurance of Rother Valley Railway.

Response: As part of any TWA/Level Crossing Order granted to operate the railway and level crossing the railway operator is required to maintain a minimum level of Public Liability Insurance. The current minimum level of insurance required by the ORR is £5m. We hope the enclosed is of assistance as we moved forward toward making formal application for Powers to construct and operate the railway Yours sincerely Mike Hart OBE Trustee: Rother Valley Railway Heritage Trust Director: Rother Valley Railway Ltd Office Tel: 01709 542907 Cell Phone: 07768 536100

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Rother Valley Railway A21 Robertsbridge

Highways & Traffic Assessment Report (Response to HA Comments on A21 Crossing)

January 2013

Rother Valley Railway Ltd

313090 ITD ITQ 006 D

25 January 2013


Highways & Traffic Assessment Report (Response to HA Comments on A21 Crossing) January 2013

Rother Valley Railway Ltd

Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton, SO50 9NW, United Kingdom

t +44 (0)23 8062 8800 f +44 (0)23 8062 8801, W www.mottmac.com

Robertsbridge Junction (RVR) Station, Station Road, Robertsbridge, Sussex TN32 5DG




Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 16.11.12 M D Lewis M Price M D Lewis First Issue

B 13.12.12 M D Lewis M Price M D Lewis Second Issue

C 17.01.13 M D Lewis R E Murdock R E Murdock Third Issue

D 25.01.13 M D Lewis R E Murdock R E Murdock Fourth Issue

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it

and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned

project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or

used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this

document being relied upon by any other party, or being used

for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission

which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by

other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary

intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties

without consent from us and from the party which

commissioned it.

313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Project Chronology __________________________________________________________________ 2 1.3 Report Structure ____________________________________________________________________ 3

2. Location and Scheme Description 5

2.1 Location __________________________________________________________________________ 5 2.2 Scheme Description _________________________________________________________________ 6

3. Scheme Options 7

3.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Level Crossing _____________________________________________________________________ 8

4. Comparison of Scheme Options 9

4.1 Road Safety (Road Users) ____________________________________________________________ 9 4.2 Maintenance/Durability ______________________________________________________________ 10 4.3 Environmental ____________________________________________________________________ 10 4.4 Network Availability ________________________________________________________________ 10 4.5 Traffic Assessment _________________________________________________________________ 10

5. Traffic Assessment 11

5.1 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 11 5.2 Highways Agency comments on Traffic Impact Study ______________________________________ 11 5.2.1.1 Flow Data ________________________________________________________________________ 11 5.2.1.2 Traffic Growth _____________________________________________________________________ 12 5.2.1.3 Queuing Analysis __________________________________________________________________ 12 5.2.1.4 Road Safety ______________________________________________________________________ 14

6. Road Safety Assessment 16

6.1 Background ______________________________________________________________________ 16 6.2 A21 near site of proposed crossing ____________________________________________________ 16 6.3 Comparative analysis of other sites ____________________________________________________ 16

7. Journey Time Assessment 18

7.1 Overview ________________________________________________________________________ 18 7.2 Journey Time Survey Findings ________________________________________________________ 18

8. Conclusions 20

Content

313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


8.1 Tourist Heritage Railway Transport ____________________________________________________ 20 8.2 Engineering ______________________________________________________________________ 20 8.3 Traffic Assessment _________________________________________________________________ 20 8.4 Road Safety ______________________________________________________________________ 21

Appendices 22

Appendix A. Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit - Context Report ________________________________________ 23 Appendix B. Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report ________________________________________________ 24 Appendix C. Traffic Impact Study ________________________________________________________________ 25 Appendix D. Traffic Impact Study – Supplementary Technical Note ______________________________________ 26 Appendix E. Personal Injury Accident Analysis Technical Note _________________________________________ 27 Appendix F. Journey Time Analysis Technical Note __________________________________________________ 28

i 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Rother Valley Railway (RVR) Limited is seeking to reconstruct a section of railway between Bodiam

and Robertsbridge in East Sussex. This section is the final missing link in the Kent and East Sussex

Railway (KESR).

The reconstructed railway line will enable the direct interchange of passengers between KESR and the

mainline railway network at the new Robertsbridge Junction Station. Once complete this will enable

visitors to use the country’s public transport system to access the KESR and to use the line as a leisure

transport corridor serving popular attractions such as the National Trust’s Bodiam Castle and the historic

town of Tenterden.

In order to complete the restoration, RVR is proposing to construct a level crossing on the A21

Robertsbridge Bypass.

The Level Crossing Approval Process

The proposed restoration of the railway, and the construction of the associated level crossings, is

proposed to be enacted under the Transport & Works Act (TWA) and/or Level Crossings Act (LCA),

1983.

The lead Government Authority in the making of an Order to construct and operate a Level Crossing is

the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR).

The process for seeking Powers to Construct and Operate a railway level crossing is detailed in Office of

the Rail Regulator document: ‘Level Crossings: A guide for managers, designers and operators. Railway

Safety Publication No. 7. December 2011’. That can be found at:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/level_crossings_guidance.pdf

As the first stage in this procedure, RVR has developed and refined designs and specifications for

the proposed crossing that have been considered at length by the overseeing organisation, the Office of

Rail Regulation (ORR).

Following completion of the initial stage of the level crossing approval process 20th January 2012 the

ORR issued a Letter of No Objection in Principle to the proposed level crossings.

As detailed in the procedural guidelines for such an application, RVR now seeks to consult with the

Local Highway Authority(s) as consultees in the level crossing approval process. This process of

consultation began in early 2012.

This further report presents technical work done in response to questions raised by the Highways Agency (HA) in particular in connection with the A21 level crossing.

Executive Summary


ii 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


As one part of that process the Highways Agency has suggested a formal ‘Application for a Departure

from Standard’ be submitted to HA by RVR. The RVR does not consider a response in such format is

appropriate to the application process outlined in the Office of the Rail Regulator document: ‘Level

Crossings: A guide for managers, designers and operators Crossing Order’. Instead RVR has sought to

cover such issues in this report and response.

1 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


1.1 Background

The Kent and East Sussex Railway (KESR) has progressively

reopened the old railway line between Tenterden and Bodiam Castle,

which became the current terminus of the line in 2000.

Rother Valley Railway (RVR) is a heritage railway charity aiming to

restore the final missing link for the KESR by recreating the link

between Robertsbridge and Bodiam, a distance of approximately 3

miles.

Completion of this link will restore the original line to Robertsbridge

Junction Station and so provide a direct public leisure transport

connection between mainline railway passenger services and the

KESR.

RVR began work on restoring the railway in 2010 and are following the

original rail alignment. To date: -

• About 1 mile of the new railway has been built from

Bodiam as far as Junction Road.

• At the western end the line has recently been rebuilt from

Robertsbridge Junction Station to the outskirts of the

village.

• RVR has now commissioned the construction of the new

Robertsbridge Junction Interchange Station.

To date RVR has committed about £1.5 million to these first phases of

the works and has available funding to complete the remaining ‘central’

section of the line once Powers have been secured.

To complete the link, RVR needs to cross the A21 Robertsbridge

Bypass and this represents the last major hurdle to the ultimate

restoration of some 13 ½ miles of heritage railway.

The proposed route follows that of the original railway and crosses the

A21 to the south of the Northbridge Street roundabout. The proposed

design will use a full barrier locally monitored and controlled level

crossing to provide a safe at grade intersection between the A21 and

the railway.

1. Introduction

2 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


1.2 Project Chronology

The following table sets out the approximate chronology and / or

timeframe of the scheme development to date: -

Milestone Timeline Key Outcomes

Rother Valley Railway

(RVR) Discussions with

Office of Rail Regulator

(ORR)

Early 2011 Initial discussions

and ORR visits to

proposed level

crossing sites

RVR letter to ORR 19th July 2011 Sets out proposed

level crossing details

and submission of

Mott MacDonald

(MM) Level Crossing

Impact study Issue

Revision ‘D’

ORR letter to RVR 24th August 2011 Response and

Report comments.

RVR email to ORR 6th November

2011

Submitted updated

MM Level Crossing

Impact study Issue

Revision ‘E’

ORR letter to RVR 20th January

2012

Summary Response

with no objection in

principle

RVR letter to Highways

Agency (HA)

23rd

May 2012 Submitted ORR

letter dated 23rd

March 2012 and MM

Level Crossing

Impact study Issue

Revision ‘E’

3 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Meeting between Rother

Valley Railway and

Highways Agency

19th April 2012 Initial consultation

regarding process

and next steps

HA letter to RVR 4th May 2012 Set out next steps

for RVR to address

with respect to

traffic, safety and

consultation.

Meeting between RVR and

HA

7th September

2012

Discussed revised

position between HA

and RVR as part of

the consultation

agreement.

Table 1-1: Chronology of events regarding RVR and the scheme development

1.3 Report Structure

The sections of the report consider the following headings: -

Section 1 – Location and Scheme Description;

Section 2 – Scheme Options;

Section 3 – Comparison of Scheme Options;

Section 4 – Traffic Assessment;

Section 5 – Road Safety Assessment; and

Section 6 – Journey Time Assessment.

In addition, several appendices are included within this report which

provided supplementary evidence in support of the respective headline

findings of Sections 4 to 6 outlined above.

4 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


The accompanying appendices are as follow: -

Appendix Title Document

Reference

Revision

A

Non-Motorised

User (NMU)

Context

Report;

313090/ITD/ITQ/001 D

B NMU Audit

Report; 264223/ITD/ITQ/126 D

C

Traffic Impact

Study (this is

an earlier

report that we

are providing

additional

information on;

288755/ITD/ITW/001 E

D

Traffic Impact

Study –

Supplementary

Technical Note

(following HA

comments

dated 14th

September

2012);

313090/ITD/ITQ/003 D

E

Personal Injury

Accident

Analysis

Technical Note

313090/ITD/ITQ/004 D

F

Journey Time

Analysis

Technical Note

313090/ITD/ITQ/007 C

5 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


2.1 Location

The proposed level crossing is located on the A21 Robertsbridge

Bypass in East Sussex at a position approximately 135m south of the

Northbridge Street Roundabout.

Robertsbridge itself is a small village located approximately 10 miles

north of Hastings and 13 miles south east of Royal Tunbridge Wells.

The Section ID for the crossing location is 1400A21/841.

Figure 2-1: A21 Robertsbridge bypass, Northbridge Street roundabout and the proposed level crossing location.

i.

Source: Imagery ©2012 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Getmapping plc, Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Map data ©2012 Google

2. Location and Scheme Description

Proposed Level Crossing

site

Approximate alignment of

Railway Route

6 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


2.2 Scheme Description

The proposed scheme comprises the construction of an at-grade level

crossing of the A21. The crossing would comprise full carriageway

width locally monitored and controlled barriers in order to prevent

vehicle and NMU incursion onto the crossing in accordance with the

requirements of the Level Crossing Guidelines As Above. The proposal

also comprises the extension of the existing 40mph speed limit south of

the A21 roundabout junction with the C18 Northbridge Street, provision

of new signs and road markings in accordance with the requirements of

the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSR&GD) and

the Traffic Signs Manual standards and/or the guidance document

“Level Crossings: a Guide for Managers, Designers and Operators –

Rail Publication 7 (December 2011)”, all as appropriate.

7 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


3.1 Overview

RVR has considered options for grade separation at the A21; with both

an underbridge and overbridge being investigated. It is understood that

both of these options would be preferable to a level crossing according

to ORR policy; however it was found that a level crossing represents

the most practical solution for a range of technical reasons.

In its submission to ORR a study by consultants Halcrow (Technical

Note: RVR-EW-001 15th May 2011) confirmed that the short distance

between the river bridge adjacent to Northbridge Street and the A21

would result in an unacceptably steep gradient up or down resulting in

safety issues and that an under bridge would put the railway track

under the A21 much lower than the adjacent river. In addition flooding

of the underbridge option would be inevitable and is anticipated to occur

several times during the course of a year. These events would lead to a

deposit of silt and collection of debris along the railway line which would

require removal prior to the line re-opening and cause train safety

adhesion risks. The level crossing option would have a significantly

reduced environmental impact in comparison to any other option.

Furthermore the flood assessment model work recently undertaken by

consultants Capita Symonds for RVR has considered flooding in the

area near the A21 at Northbridge Street and in particular its effect on

the adjacent bunded and protected housings area. The River Rother

immediately adjacent to the proposed Northbridge level crossing is a

‘pinch point’ in the flow of the river at times of significant flood flow. The

model used when the flood protection scheme was built some years

ago assumes that the river can overtop its banks into the field between

Northbridge Street and the A21 level crossings, so in effect increasing

the rivers flow capacity in that area. Remodelling that scheme with the

level crossings requires the reconstructed railway embankment joining

those two level crossings to have a number of flood culverts openings

under the railway line to enable that flood flow to continue to run

southwards under the railway at that location. A cutting built for an A21

underbridge would therefore require that flood flow to continue to be

able to pass across the railway in volume at times of significant flood

flow so completely filling such cutting with water, mud and detritus and

so make such a cutting impractical.

3. Scheme Options

8 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


3.2 Level Crossing

The proposed level crossing would be constructed from a monolithic

precast concrete slab with embedded rail, such as the EDILON LC-H

system or similar. This system offers minimal settlement and rapid

installation; typically requiring a short weekend closure to install.

EDILON LC-H systems have also been shown to require very little

maintenance over their operational life and would allow a seamless

connection to the adjacent road surface. The slabs can be

manufactured to provide high skid resistance values using special

concrete mixtures on the top surface. The railway embankment

required for construction of a level crossing would have an average

height of 1.66m.

9 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


4.1 Road Safety (Road Users)

It has been agreed with HA that any necessary detailed road safety

audit is premature at this stage, however, the HA has requested that

the needs of non-motorised users (NMUs) be considered. To that end,

an NMU Context report (313090/ITD-ITQ-001) and an NMU Audit report

(264223FD-ITD-ITQ-126) have been prepared.

These are shown at Appendix A and B respectively.

Potential road safety impacts include the following:

Traffic queuing back towards the Northbridge Street

roundabout north of the crossing.

Possibility of northbound traffic tailing back from Northbridge

Street roundabout and blocking the crossing.

Risk of unreliability associated with theft, vandalism or failure of

the crossing equipment.

It is considered that the provision of a level crossing at this location

would be even safer than a full barrier locally monitored signalman

controlled level crossing on the national rail network all as in Appendix

E. This is due to the following reasons:

As a tourist line, it will have fewer days of operation;

A limited proportion of journeys will take place under

dusk/night conditions;

Trains will be limited to speeds set by agreement with the

ORR but typically +/- 15mph at the crossing location; and

Few trains are timetabled to run during the weekday rush hours

when traffic density on the A21 will be at its peak.

4. Comparison of Scheme Options

10 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


4.2 Maintenance/Durability

As detailed above, the proposed level crossing construction will limit

maintenance to a negligible level.

4.3 Environmental

Rother District Council’s (RDC) Local Plan (Adopted: July 2006, Section

9.25) offers support to the extension of the KESR between Bodiam and

Robertsbridge on the basis that it does not compromise the integrity of

the floodplain or flood protection measures surrounding Robertsbridge.

RVR has commissioned consultants Capita Symonds to review the

impact of the reconstruction of the railway which work is currently

moving toward satisfactory completion.

RVR has also consulted with the High Weald area of outstanding

natural beauty (AONB) unit which has not presented any objection in

principle to the reinstatement of the line on its original alignment.

4.4 Network Availability

The construction of a level crossing would require a short weekend

closure of the A21 during the quietest part of the year.

4.5 Traffic Assessment

A traffic impact study produced by Mott MacDonald in September 2011

reported forecast impacts on the A21 as a result of the proposals.

These are amplified as a result of HA’s initial comments and are

detailed further in Section 5 of this report.

11 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


5.1 Overview

Mott MacDonald produced a Traffic Impact Study in September 2011

(Doc. Ref. 288755/ITD/ITQ/001/D) which sets out the assessment of

the proposed crossing and the forecast impacts as a result of its

operation.

The Traffic Impact Study sets out to report forecast maximum and

average northbound and southbound A21 queue lengths for the

following scenarios based on the timetabled operation of the proposed

crossing: -

Traffic flows for the ‘current year’ (2010);

Traffic flows for the ‘design year’ (five years hence): 2016; and

Traffic flows for the ‘design year’ (ten years hence) 2021.

It is recognised that significant queuing is forecast for the design year,

2021. On occasions, for example Bank Holidays, queues are forecast

to exceed 1km.

The Traffic Impact Study (Doc. Ref. 288755/ITD/ITQ/001/E, October

2011) is referenced at Appendix C.

5.2 Highways Agency comments on Traffic Impact Study

Comments on elements of this study were received by Mott

MacDonald, from the Highways Agency (via email dated 14th

September 2012).

These comments are summarised as follows: -

5.2.1.1 Flow Data

The HA’s consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), have noted that whilst

acceptable for the purposes of this assessment: -

“it should be noted that hourly vehicular arrivals are unlikely to be

uniform particularly around the peak hours and further work may

therefore be necessary.”

5. Traffic Assessment

12 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Furthermore: -

“The use of averages to determine weekday and weekend flows

for spring, summer and autumn will result in profiles that do not

represent peak flow conditions. A more robust and

recommended approach would be to assess the worst case

weekday and weekend profiles and also look at the upper

quartile of weekend and weekday flow data.”

Response - This has been considered and is shown in Section 5.2 of

the Technical Note referenced at Appendix D.

5.2.1.2 Traffic Growth

“TEMPRO has been used to growth the 2010 TRADS flows to

2016 and 2021 to represent five and ten year opening date

scenarios. The use of dataset 62 and NTM factors is accepted

together with the associated growth factors.”

Response - Hence, there are no actions arising in this regard.

5.2.1.3 Queuing Analysis

The HA’s consultants, PB, also note that: -

“The proposed level crossing is situated approximately 140m

south of the Northbridge Street roundabout. Therefore, assuming

a length of 5.75m per vehicle, a queue of 24 vehicles or more,

associated with the crossing in the southbound direction, would

result in queue interaction with the junction and represent an

unacceptable risk to road safety. Notwithstanding the above

recommended changes to the flow data and closure times, the

spreadsheet model indicates that queues of 24 vehicles or more

could occur during extreme flow days such as bank holidays.”

13 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Furthermore: -

“Chapter 5 states that on extreme flow days the A21 is already

congested and therefore the introduction of the level crossing

would not have a discernable impact on traffic as it would already

be queuing. This conclusion is not supported as the level of

queuing associated with the congestion is not quantified and is

likely to vary on an annual basis. As such, the introduction of the

level crossing is likely to exacerbate the queuing conditions

which could cause queuing back to the Northbridge Street

roundabout.

There is also an additional danger that if traffic is queuing the

barriers could close on a vehicle which has not made it fully

across the level crossing due to the slow moving traffic. This

could however, be mitigated in the design if the crossing is

controlled by a signalman with CCTV coverage of the crossing in

addition to the yellow box markings.”

Response – With regard to the HA’s consultants concerns regarding

vehicles queuing and the operation of the barrier, there is no danger

to queuing traffic that the barriers could close on a vehicle. This is

due to the proposed level crossing being of the Full barrier Local

Monitored and signalman controlled type. This will not be an

‘automatic’, or unmanned / unmonitored level crossings.

Furthermore, the operational sequence for closing the level

crossing by the signalman being: -

Turn on road stop lights plus warblers.

Once the level crossing site is seen to be clear the

signalman will lower half only of barriers (diagonally

opposite and immediately facing the oncoming direction of

road traffic).

Then, when ready, and after ensuring no road traffic

remains within the level crossing envelope, the signalman

will lower the other pair of diagonally opposite barriers – so

completely isolating the road from the railway.

Then turn the railway signals to ‘clear’ for the passage of

the railway train – the maximum speed of which is set in

discussion with the overseeing body the Office of the Rail

Regulator but anticipated to be set in the region of +/-15

mph.

14 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


With respect to queuing capacity, the theoretical capacity of a link is

taken from the Highways Agency advice note TA46/97. Annex D of

TA46/97 refers to the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF). The CRF is

an estimate of the capacity of a link when it is considered to be

congested (i.e. the hourly traffic demand exceeds the maximum

sustainable hourly throughput of the link. The CRF for the maximum

sustainable hourly lane throughput is defined as: -

CAPACITY = [A – B * Pk%H]

Where, Pk%H is the percentage of ‘Heavy Vehicles’. A and B parameters are dependant on road standard; A B Single Carriageway 1380 15.0 Dual Carriageway 2100 20.0 Motorway 2300 25.0

Figure 3.2 (page 16) of the Traffic Impact Study (Doc. Ref.

288755/ITD/ITQ/001/D) indicates that the southbound flows for the

Spring / Autumn profile exceed the CRF in 2010.

Furthermore, it is considered that from a traffic operation perspective,

the interruption of vehicle flow on bank holidays at the proposed RVR

level crossing will be of much the same effect as at the various

pedestrian crossings and traffic light controlled junctions already

existing on the A21 between Tonbridge and Hastings.

5.2.1.4 Road Safety

At present there is not considered to be an accident problem at the

location of the proposed crossing. The HA’s consultants have raised

the concern that the introduction of a new level crossing and the

associated reduction in speed limit from 70mph to 40mph would inhibit

the free flow of traffic and increase the road safety risk. It is also

unclear how the speed reduction will be enforced.

It is also asserted by the HA’s consultants, PB, that: -

15 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


“the risk is further increased if the queue interacts with the

Northbridge Street roundabout which it is forecast to do during

peak flow days. Given that the above changes to the

spreadsheet model are likely to result in greater forecast levels of

queuing and the frequency of queue interaction with the

roundabout the road safety risk is likely to increase.”

Response – The speed limit at the crossing location is already 40mph.

The extension of the road speed restriction would form a part of the

level crossing powers contained within the TWA Order / Level Crossing

Order application. If the Order is made, the additional short section of

40mph road will become subject to the normal speed restriction

enforcement procedures already in place on the A21.

16 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


6.1 Background

In the HA’s correspondence (letter dated 4th May 2012), it was

requested that: -

“To demonstrate what the impact would be on road safety (an

entirely additional issue from rail safety). As discussed there is

already a collision record of Killed, seriously injured and slight

collisions that highway authorities are challenged with and the

HA seek developer mitigation to ensure that the collision record

does not worsen.”

And;

“To include an assessment of what impact the development

would have on changing behaviours of traffic diverting through

Robertsbridge. This should include consideration of the impact

on collision record at the A21 junction with George Hill.”

6.2 A21 near site of proposed crossing

With respect to the A21 itself, the data shows that there are three

Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) within a 250m search radius of the site.

Of these, only one (Sussex Police Ref. 0805073) is considered to be

relevant to the site. This involved a motor vehicle overtaking another

vehicle and was classified as slight in severity.

6.3 Comparative analysis of other sites

In order to make an informed decision on the possible impacts of a full

barrier controlled level crossing, six sites have been reviewed with

respect to their historical collision data.

The full details of the road safety (comparative analysis) are shown at

Appendix E.

The choice of these sites has been directed by RVR, who considered

that they have representative characteristics similar to those exhibited

by the proposed crossing site on the A21 at Robertsbridge.

6. Road Safety Assessment

17 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


The perceived generalised dangers associated with railway level

crossings come primarily from accidents at 'open' level crossings, half

barrier level crossings, automatically operated (unmonitored) level

crossings and user worked crossings.

The type of level crossings proposed by RVR are of the Full Barrier

type, local monitored & controlled by a railway signalman. These are

also classified as MCG, MOB & MOB-CACTV crossings in the reports

referred to below.

Two learned reports provide a useful detailed overview of railway

level crossing data:

• Railway Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) (a UK

Government Agency). Study of 'Open' crossings – but that

contains detailed comparative performance data for ‘Full

Barrier’ crossings – as the type proposed by RVR.

Source:

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110728_R122011_AOCLs_Class_Inv.

pdf

• Centre for Transport Studies: Andrew W Evans Imperial

College London. This paper investigates level crossing

performance over the period 1946 to 2009.

Source: http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchActivities/publicationDetails.asp?PublicationID=1432

It is therefore considered that full barrier level crossings are regarded

as having a good safety record as demonstrated both in this report

and the learned studies referred to above.

18 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


7.1 Overview

This section considers an assessment of the use by drivers of the route

via Robertsbridge village (C18) as an alternative to the A21.

As part of the overall assessment, journey time surveys have been

conducted along the A21 and Northbridge Street (the C18 through

Robertsbridge). That in response to a question from HA as to if the

route through Robertsbridge might provide an alternative to traffic

seeking to avoid a level crossing closure on the A21.

The surveys were undertaken on Tuesday 23rd

October for the following

periods: -

AM peak (0630 – 0830);

Inter-peak (0930 - 1130); and

PM peak (1630 – 1830).

The routes surveyed are as follows: -

A - A21(T) mainline, southbound (through the site of the

proposed level crossing).

B – C18 via Robertsbridge village, southbound (avoiding the

site of the proposed level crossing).

C - A21(T) mainline, northbound (through the site of the

proposed level crossing).

D – C18 via Robertsbridge village, northbound (avoiding the

site of the proposed level crossing).

7.2 Journey Time Survey Findings

Unsurprisingly, the journey time via the C18 Northbridge Street, through

Robertsbridge is longer than the direct route via the A21 Robertsbridge

Bypass.

The journey times along the A21 between the reference points takes

approximately 3 minutes 30 seconds, whilst journey times via the C18

Northbridge Street take approximately 5 minutes.

7. Journey Time Assessment

19 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


The standard deviation for the journey times has been calculated and

the variance from the mean has been determined. There is a high

confidence that journey times on this route fall within +/- 1 standard

deviation of the mean journey time.

It is considered unlikely that traffic would divert from the A21 at

Robertsbridge, along the C18 in order to avoid any queuing that may

occur as a result of the proposed level crossing being in operation. The

full results of the journey time surveys are shown at Appendix F.

20 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


8.1 Tourist Heritage Railway Transport

Completion of the railway line between Bodiam and Robertsbridge

Junction Station will enable the direct interchange of passengers

between KESR and the mainline railway network. Once complete this

will enable visitors to use the countries public transport system to

access the KESR, rather than at present largely by private car or coach.

With proper access to the mainline railway system at Robertsbridge

Junction the line will be able to operate as a public leisure transport

corridor serving popular attractions such as the National Trust’s busy

Bodiam Castle and the historic town of Tenterden.

This will create a heritage railway transport link that will provide tangible

public transport benefits as well as benefit the local economy as a result

of an increase in tourism. The railway will also serve to reduce traffic

movements on local rural roads by encouraging tourist to use the UK’s

public transport network to visit the KESR and the local attractions such

as Bodiam caste and Tenterden that the line serves. The level crossing

is considered to represent the only real feasible solution for crossing the

A21.

8.2 Engineering

With respect to design of the Level crossing, such works are not

covered by existing Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) /

Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW). Therefore

those aspects which can be applied, such as the Stopping Sight

Distance (SSD), road markings, position of signage etc, will be done so

in accordance with the above standards and/or the guidance document

“Level Crossings: a Guide for Managers, Designers and Operators –

Rail Publication 7 (December 2011)”, all as appropriate.

8.3 Traffic Assessment

The traffic impact study indicates that a level crossing operating under

the sample timetable will cause only marginal delays to traffic on the

A21.

Queuing is forecast to occur on occasions, however, the A21 currently

experiences significant congestion, queuing and delay on Bank

Holidays. In fact analysis of traffic flow data shows that the A21

experiences congestion reference flows (CRF) which suggest that the

maximum sustainable hourly throughput of the link is exceeded.

Installation of the proposed level crossings will barely effect overall

journey times.

8. Conclusions

21 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


8.4 Road Safety

The provision of a full width barrier controlled level crossing does

introduce some potential road safety impacts. The proposal has been

the subject of a NMU Audit report (Appendices A and B) as requested

by HA. The conclusions of this are that there is little current NMU

activity along this section of the A21 (be it pedestrian, cyclists or

equestrian activity).

22 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix A. NMU Context Report _________________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix B. NMU Audit Report __________________________________________________________________ 24 Appendix C. Traffic Impact Study ________________________________________________________________ 25 Appendix D. Traffic Impact Technical Note _________________________________________________________ 26 Appendix E. Personal Injury Accident Report _______________________________________________________ 27 Appendix F. Journey Time Assessment ___________________________________________________________ 28

Appendices

23 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix A. Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit - Context Report

24 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix B. Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

25 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix C. Traffic Impact Study

26 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix D. Traffic Impact Study – Supplementary Technical Note

27 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix E. Personal Injury Accident Analysis Technical Note

28 313090/ITD/ITQ/006/D 25 January 2013


Appendix F. Journey Time Analysis Technical Note


Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit - Context Report

January 2013

Rother Valley Railway Limited

313090 ITD ITQ 001 D

25 January 2013


Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit - Context Report

January 2013




Robertsbridge Junction (RVR) Station, Station Road, Robertsbridge, Sussex, TN32 5DG





A 15

th November 2012

B Pledge M Lewis R Murdock First Issue

B 13

th December 2012

B Pledge M Lewis R Murdock Second Issue

C 17th January 2013 M Lewis R Murdock R Murdock Third Issue

D 25th January 2013 M Lewis R Murdock R Murdock Fourth Issue










other parties




commissioned it.

313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Scheme Description 2

2.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 2

3. Policy Context 4

3.1 Planning and the Strategic Road Network ________________________________________________ 4

4. NMU Activity 6

4.1 NMU Flows ________________________________________________________________________ 6 4.1.1 Pedestrians and pedestrian routes ______________________________________________________ 6 4.1.2 Cyclists and cycle routes _____________________________________________________________ 7 4.1.3 Equestrians and equestrian routes ______________________________________________________ 8 4.1.4 Flows and speed of motorised traffic ____________________________________________________ 8 4.1.5 Accident Data ______________________________________________________________________ 9 4.2 Potential and Actual Impacts _________________________________________________________ 10 4.3 Existing Assessment _______________________________________________________________ 10 4.4 NMU Objectives ___________________________________________________________________ 10 4.5 NMU Audit _______________________________________________________________________ 11

Appendices 12

Appendix A. Results of NMU Survey (Sunday 13th January 2013) ________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Content

i 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


The Kent and East Sussex Railway (KESR) operates between Tenterden in Kent and Bodiam Castle in

East Sussex. The line is currently difficult to access by public transport.

The Rother Valley Railway (RVR) Heritage Trust is currently reconstructing the railway line between the

line’s current terminus at Bodiam and Robertsbridge Junction Station to enable the direct interchange of

passengers between KESR and the mainline railway network. Once complete that will enable visitors to

use the country’s public transport system to access the KESR and to use the line as a leisure transport

corridor serving popular attractions such as the National Trust’s Bodiam Castle and the historic town of

Tenterden.

This report sets out the Non-Motorised User (NMU) Context Report requirements as defined in the

Highways Agency standard HD42/05 ‘Non-Motorised User Audits’. The NMU Context Report provides a

summary of all available information relevant to existing and potential patterns of use by NMUs within the

design life of the scheme.

This NMU Context Report sets out the opportunities and objectives to improve conditions for NMUs in

relation to the proposed scheme.

Executive Summary

1 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


1.1 Background

This NMU Context Report has been prepared at the outset of the

preliminary design and relates to footways, footpaths, public rights of

way (PROW), permissive paths, cycleways and other local routes

potentially impacted upon by the proposed A21 Rother Valley Railway

level crossing proposal. It has been prepared following the guidance

given in the Highways Agency’s standard HD42/05 – Non-Motorised

User Audits.

The report takes into account work to date with respect to NMUs,

primarily in relation to the existing route and also to adjacent

communities and suggests mitigation measures (where appropriate).

It is understood that as part of the scheme development, an

Environmental Statement has not yet been prepared. It is envisaged

that this statement will be prepared at a later date as part of the

Transport & Works Act / Level Crossing Order application process.

1. Introduction

2 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


2.1 Overview

The proposal comprises the construction of a new full-barrier controlled

railway level crossing across the A21(T) Robertsbridge Bypass, some

135m south of the existing roundabout with the C18 (Northbridge

Street).

View of A21 looking south towards proposed level crossing site

Source: Mott MacDonald

The A21 at this location is a two-lane, two-way all purpose trunk road

(APTR). The carriageway cross-section at this location is 7.3m wide

with 1.0m wide hardstrips. For the purposes of this assessment, it is

considered as being of ‘S2’ standard.

The location of the proposed level crossing site is shown overleaf in

Figure 2-1.

2. Scheme Description

3 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Figure 2-1 Proposed level crossing location (Robertsbridge)

Source: Background Mapping - Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database

copyright 2010

Proposed

Crossing Site

4 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


3.1 Planning and the Strategic Road Network

The policy context in which this process is being developed is twofold,

and is outlined as follows: -

The Level Crossing Approval Process

The proposed restoration of the railway, and the construction of the

associated level crossings, is proposed to be enacted under the

Transport & Works Act (TWA) and/or Level Crossings Act (LCA), 1983.

The lead Government Authority in the making of an Order to construct

and operate a Level Crossing is the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR).

The process for seeking Powers to Construct and Operate a railway

level crossing is detailed in Office of the Rail Regulator document:

‘Level Crossings: A guide for managers, designers and operators.

Railway Safety Publication No. 7. December 2011’. That can be found

at:


RVR has developed and refined designs and specifications for the

proposed crossing that have been considered at length by the

overseeing organisation, the ORR.

Following completion of the initial stage of the level crossing approval

process 20th January 2012 the ORR issued a Letter of No Objection in

Principle to the proposed level crossings.

As detailed in the procedural guidelines for such an application, RVR

now seeks to consult with the Local Highway Authority(s) as consultees

in the level crossing approval process. This process of consultation

began in early 2012.

Department for Transport / Highways Agency Development Protocols

The Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2007 March 2007 sets

out the parameters for development on the Highways Agency (HA)

network.

3. Policy Context


5 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


This states that: -

42. The Agency will adopt a graduated and less restrictive

approach to accesses on the remainder of the strategic road

network, but there will still be a presumption in favour of using

existing accesses and junctions. Any additional junctions or

increased junction capacity should be identified in the LDD

and/or RTS and will be considered within the context of the

Agency’s forward programme of works.

43. Regardless of the status of the road, developers will be

required to ensure that their proposals comply in all respects with

design standards and other requirements. Where there would be

physical changes to the network, schemes must be submitted to

road safety and non-motorised user audit procedures. The

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges sets out details of the

Secretary of State’s requirements for access design and audit. If

necessary, further advice is available from the Agency. The

Secretary of State may direct that planning permission not be

granted for any planning application which fails to meet these

requirements or which, for any other reason, raises significant

safety concerns.

44. The Agency should be consulted on any development

proposals where a new access onto a local road is required,

which in turn feeds a strategic road and has the potential for a

material effect.

45. LPAs will need to consult the Agency over any development

which may affect the users of a strategic road, even though it

may not lead to an increase in traffic. Examples of such

development would include earth mounds, wind farms and golf

courses. The Agency should also be consulted on applications

for signs or advertisements visible from the strategic road

network.”

6 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


4.1 NMU Flows

Mott MacDonald has been unable to directly source data from any

public authority relating to pedestrian, cycle and equestrian activity

along the A21 at Robertsbridge (between the roundabout with the C18

to the north and the roundabout with the A2100 to the south).

However, as part of the scheme development proposals, RVR has

undertaken a number of surveys to conduct counts of NMU movement

along the A21 at the location of the proposed level crossing in order to

quantify the level of activity that does occur.

Initial surveys conducted by RVR on Wednesday 14th November 2012

for the 12-hour period 0700-1900 showed that no pedestrians, cyclists

or horses were recorded as passing the site.

Further surveys conducted at the site of the proposed A21 level

crossing on Sunday 13th January 2013 for the 12-hour period 0700-

1900 again showed that no pedestrians, cyclists or horses were

recorded as passing the site. The results of both surveys are provided

at Appendix A.

Furthermore, Mott MacDonald considers that there is likely to be no, or

little, NMU activity along this section of the A21. This is based on the

premise that the A21 at this location acts as a bypass to the east of

Robertsbridge and its primary function is the efficient and expeditious

movement of traffic, north–south along the A21 corridor.

Nevertheless, the use of the A21 at this location does permit the

passage of NMU traffic and so this report considers the pedestrian,

cycle and equestrian usage even though those flows are clearly

extremely low.

4.1.1 Pedestrians and pedestrian routes

There is no pedestrian provision along the A21(T) Robertsbridge

Bypass.

Signed pedestrian routes run perpendicular to the A21 near the location

of the proposed level crossing. However, these are situated in adjacent

fields and grazing land and do not necessitate the crossing of the A21.

There is also an overbridge for east-west movements located

approximately 200 metres south of the location of the proposed level

crossing, near Redlands Lane.

4. NMU Activity

7 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


The location of adjoining footpaths, bridleways and cycleways are

shown in Figure 4.1 overleaf.

4.1.2 Cyclists and cycle routes

According to the SUSTRANS website (www.sustrans.org) the A21 does

not form part of the National Cycle Network at this location.

There are 1.0m wide hardstrips along which cyclists can potentially

travel and at the time of a site visit in October 2012 are considered to

be relatively free of detritus.

Figure 4-1 shows the location of current footpaths, cycleways and

bridleways in the Robertsbridge area.

Figure 4-1:Location of footpaths, bridleways, cycleways etc

Source: East Sussex County Council website (www.eastsussex.gov.uk)

Key:-

Footpaths

Bridleways

http://www.sustrans.org/

8 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Licensed Cycleway

It can be seen, that the A21 does not form part of any other function for

cyclists, pedestrians or equestrians.

There is one footpath that passes beneath the A21 close to the site of

the proposed level crossing.

4.1.3 Equestrians and equestrian routes

Figure 4-1 above shows the location of existing bridleways. None of

these are affected by the scheme proposal.

4.1.4 Flows and speed of motorised traffic

The Highways Agency publishes traffic data collected from Automatic

Traffic Counters (ATCs) at various locations on the motorway and trunk

road network on their TRADS2 website (http://trads.hatris.co.uk/). Data

for the whole of 2011 is available and hourly traffic flows have been

downloaded for use in this study from two sites on the A21:

Site No. T/04/215 – southbound on the A21 Robertsbridge

Bypass southern section (Grid reference E574125, N124015)

Site No. T/04216 – northbound on the A21 Robertsbridge

Bypass southern section (Grid reference E574128, N123929)

Traffic data has been summarised as annual average daily traffic

(AADT) for the purposes of this NMU Context Report.

Figure 4-2 2011 AADT on A21 near Robertsbridge

Table Heading Left Southbound Northbound Total

AM Peak 541 565

PM Peak 711 551

AADT Total 7,472 7,427 14,899

Source: TRADS2 website: Online Reporting (Period report 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2011)

9 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Figure 4-3 2011 AADT Flow Profile on A21(T) near Robertsbridge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

01:0

0

02:0

0

03:0

0

04:0

0

05:0

0

06:0

0

07:0

0

08:0

0

09:0

0

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

13:0

0

14:0

0

15:0

0

16:0

0

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21:0

0

22:0

0

23:0

0

00:0

0

Hour

Tra

ffic

vo

lum

e (

veh

icle

s)

A21 Southbound (ATC site 215)

A21 Northbound (ATC site 216)

Source: TRADS2 website: Online Reporting (Period report 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2011)

4.1.5 Accident Data

Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been obtained from Sussex

Police. Data for the most recent five-year period has been requested

and data supplied covered the period 1st November 2005 to the 30

th

November 2010.

10 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


The purpose of obtaining historic accident data is to review the current

road safety record in the vicinity of each of the proposed level crossing

sites. The road safety record will inform the assessment of the physical

extent of any necessary changes to speed limits required on the

approaches to the crossings. An assessment has also been made of

the potential impact of the introduction on the road safety record, either

positive or negative.

According to the records of Sussex Police, there has been only one PIA

recorded near the vicinity of the site, which involved a vehicle travelling

southbound overtaking another vehicle near Redlands Lane.

For full details on the road safety record of the A21 at this location, refer

to MM Report on A21 PIA Analysis (Doc. Ref. 313090-ITD-ITQ-004).

4.2 Potential and Actual Impacts

It is considered that the construction of a proposed full barrier-controlled

level crossing in itself would not have an adverse affect on the

movements of NMUs in this area.

Furthermore, it is considered that there are no immediately identifiable

conflict points that would impact NMUs.

4.3 Existing Assessment

Mott MacDonald understands that there has been no previous

assessment of the effects on the NMU routes as part of the proposed

works.

4.4 NMU Objectives

Based on the above, the objectives of the NMU assessment are to:

where applicable;

Maintain safety for vulnerable NMU users on the A21 and

where it intersects with the existing highway network; and

the design of the proposal is cogniscent of NMU

requirements.

11 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


4.5 NMU Audit

The NMU Audit is a separate document prepared by Mott MacDonald

which examines the potential impacts on non-motorised users as a

result of the proposals.

Please refer to the Mott MacDonald report ‘A21 Non-Motorised User

Audit Report – Rother Valley Railway’ (Doc. Ref. 264223FD-ITD-ITQ-

126-C).

12 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Appendix A. Results of NMU Surveys (Wednesday 12th November 2012 and Sunday 13th January 2013) _______ 13

Appendices

13 313090/ITD/ITQ/001/D 25 January 2013


Appendix A. Results of NMU Surveys (Wednesday 12th November 2012 and Sunday 13th January 2013)

Non-Motorised User Audit

A21 Rother Valley Railway Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

January 2013


€

264223FD ITD ITQ 126 D

25 January 2013


A21 Rother Valley Railway Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

January 2013









A 15/11/12 M D Lewis B A Pledge R E Murdock First Issue

B 12/12/12 M D Lewis B A Pledge R E Murdock Second Issue

C 17/01/13 M D Lewis R E Murdock R E Murdock Third Issue

D 25/01/13 M D Lewis R E Murdock R E Murdock Fourth Issue










other parties




commissioned it.

264223FD/ITD/ITQ/126/D 25 January 2013


Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Background 2

3. Items Raised in this Audit 4

4. Audit Team Statement 6

Appendices 7

Appendix A. List of Documents / Drawings Reviewed _________________________________________________ 8

Content

1 264223FD/ITD/ITQ/126/D 25 January 2013


This report describes a Non-Motorised User (NMU) audit carried out for a proposed full barriered

locally controlled and monitored, railway level crossing of the A21 near Robertsbridge, East

Sussex. The proposals comprise the construction of a new at-grade embedded rail on a pre-cast

concrete slab, lifting gated barriers which extend the full width of the carriageway and associated

road markings and signs.

The audit was carried out for the Design Team in October 2012 in

accordance with Highways Agency standard, HD42/05 ‘Non Motorised

User Audits’.

The report has been prepared as a stand-alone Preliminary Design

Stage NMU audit. The audit team has prepared the ‘Rother Valley

Railway Non-Motorised User Audit Context report (dated November

2012), prepared by Mott MacDonald’s Integrated Transport Division

(Southampton).

The Audit Team comprised:

M Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) BEng, C.Eng, MICE

B Pledge(NMU Audit Team Member) AMCIHT, AMIHE

The audit comprised of: -

An examination of the scheme preliminary design drawings

A site visit on Tuesday 23rd

October 2012; and

A review of the Context Report, dated November 2012.

1. Introduction



The following reports and data were reviewed during the Audit process:-

2.1 Context Report

The Context Report identifies three main objectives for the A21

proposed level crossing. These, and the design features that have

been incorporated to satisfy them, have been included in the

Preliminary Design as described below.

Table 2-1: Summary of Design Objectives and Design Feature

Objective Design Feature

Ensure continuity of existing NMU routes where applicable

The alignment of the proposed railway corridor runs perpendicular to the A21. this route is used as a footpath link. East-west pedestrian route, grade-separated from the A21 to be secured.

Maintain safety for vulnerable NMU users on the A21and where it intersects with the existing highway network

No (or little NMU) activity expected – and largely unaffected by the proposed A21 crossing.

Ensure a design of NMU measures compliant with user requirements.

The design has been undertaken with the needs of NMU taken into account.

2.2 Road Safety Audit

At the time of writing, it is understood that no road safety audits have

been prepared in association with the proposed scheme. It is

envisaged that road safety audit(s) will be carried out at a later date as

part of the Transport & Works Act / Level Crossing Order application

process.

2.3 Summary of Pedestrian Movements

Mott MacDonald has been unable to directly source data from any

public authority relating to pedestrian, cycle and equestrian activity

along the A21 at Robertsbridge (between the roundabout with the C18

to the north and the roundabout with the A2100 to the south).

2. Background



However, recent surveys of NMU movements at the site of the

proposed A21 level crossing were undertaken on Sunday 13th

November 2013 for the 12-hour period 0700-1200. These show that no

pedestrians, cyclists or horses were recorded as passing the site.



3.1 Issue 1

Location: Existing pedestrian footpath

The alignment of the proposed extension of the railway between

Bodiam (to the east) and Robertsbridge (to the west) bisects the A21 at

a distance approximately 140 metres south of the A21 roundabout

junction with the C18.

This railway route, crosses adjoining fields and grazing meadows,

which are signposted as pedestrian footpaths / rights of way. As the

scheme develops, it is important that the pedestrian footpath routes are

maintained.

This may necessitate the fencing of the RVR railway line to prevent

unauthorised intrusion along the corridor.

Figure: 3-1: View looking south along A21 and view of adjoining grazing

meadows with RoW.


Action Taken

The existing pedestrian footpath routes will be retained and not

interfered with resultant from the new railway and the A21 level

crossing.

The RVR railway line will be fenced to normal railway standards to

prevent unauthorised intrusion along the corridor.

3. Items Raised in this Audit



3.2 Issue 2

Location: at site of proposed at-grade crossing

Drawings prepared by Rother Valley Railway (Drwg. No. A21-LC-01)

show the proposed layout for the level crossing.

These feature a full (carriageway) width barrier to prevent vehicular

traffic and NMUs incurring into the level crossing.

Cyclist activity on the A21 is considered to be low.

Action Taken

Cyclists who do travel along the A21 will be held at the stop line with

other traffic when the level crossing barriers are lowered, closing the

road and preventing access to all, including NMUs. The barriers would

be incorporated into the railway corridor fence line. No supplementary

NMU access across the railway would be provided at the level crossing.



I certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with HD 42/05.

NMU Audit Leader

M D Lewis BEng (Hons), CEng, MICE

Signed:

Date: 25th January 2013

Senior Road Safety Engineer

Mott MacDonald

Stoneham Place

Stoneham Lane

Southampton

SO50 9NW

NMU Audit Team Member

B A Pledge, AMCIHT, AMIHE

Signed:

Date: 25th January 2013

Senior Road Safety Engineer

Mott MacDonald

Stoneham Place

Stoneham Lane

Southampton

SO50 9NW

4. Audit Team Statement



Appendix A. List of Documents / Drawings Reviewed __________________________________________________ 8

Appendices



A.1. Documents / Drawings

Drawings / Documents reviewed by the Audit Team

Document Number. Rev Title

288755/ITD/ITW/001 D Rother Valley Railway (Proposed Level Crossings) Traffic Impact Study

313090/ITD/ITQ/001 D A21 Rother Valley Railway Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit – Context report


Appendix A. List of Documents / Drawings Reviewed

Rother Valley RailwayProposed Level Crossings

Traffic Impact Study

October 2011


Appendix C

Traffic Impact Study Revision E dated October 2011

Please see copy of this report previously submitted.


Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Technical Note

January 2012


313090 ITD ITQ 003 D

PiMS

17 January 2013


Traffic Impact Study - Supplementary Technical Note

January 2012



t +44 (0)23 8062 8800 f +44 (0)23 8062 8801, www.mottmac.com


313090/ITD/ITQ/003/D 17 January 2013 PiMS


Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description Standard

A 19 October 2012 SLA MDL MDL First Issue

B 15 November 2012 SLA MDL MDL Second Issue

C 12 December 2012 SLA MDL MDL Third Issue

D 17 January 2013 SLA MDL REM Fourth Issue








for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which

is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other

parties.




commissioned it.



Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Review of methodology _______________________________________________________________ 2

2. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 data 3

2.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 T/04/215 – southbound _______________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 T/04/216 – northbound _______________________________________________________________ 4

3. Sensitivity test: weekday and weekend – 2010 6

3.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 6 3.2 T/04/216 – southbound _______________________________________________________________ 6 3.3 T/04/216 – northbound _______________________________________________________________ 7 3.4 T/04/2016 – northbound (non bank holiday weekday) _______________________________________ 7

4. Assessment of upper quartile 2010 9

4.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 9

5. Revised queue model 10

5.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 10 5.2 Traffic profile ______________________________________________________________________ 10 5.3 Closure period and assessment year ___________________________________________________ 10 5.4 Results __________________________________________________________________________ 10

6. Summary 13

6.1 General __________________________________________________________________________ 13 6.2 Queuing _________________________________________________________________________ 13

Appendices 14

Appendix A. Correspondence ___________________________________________________________________ 15

Content


1


1.1 Introduction

In October 2011, Mott MacDonald produced a Traffic Impact Study (Document Reference:

288755/ITD/ITW/001/E) on the behalf of Rother Valley Railway Limited. As set out in the 2011 report, the

Rother Valley Railway Heritage Trust is proposing to reconstruct part of the historical railway line, between

Tenterden in Kent and Bodiam in East Sussex, with three proposed level crossings along the route.

Part of this previous work looked at traffic flows on the A21, assessing the likely traffic impact from the

proposed level crossing on this trunk road.

As described in Section 2.2.1 of the Mott MacDonald report: -

“The Highways Agency publishes traffic data collected from ATCs at various locations on the trunk

road and motorway network on their TRADS2 website (http://trads.hatris.co.uk/). Data for the whole

of 2010 is available and hourly traffic flows have been downloaded for use in this study from two

sites on the A21:”

These being: -

Site no T/04/215 – southbound on the A21 Robertsbridge Bypass southern section (Grid reference

E574125, N124015); and

Site no T/04216 – northbound on the A21 Robertsbridge Bypass southern section (Grid reference

574128, N123929).

The initial work assessed ‘typical days’ in 2010 for:

Spring/Autumn – Average weekday (Monday to Friday);

Spring/Autumn – Average Saturday;

Spring/Autumn – Average Sunday;

Summer – Average weekday (Monday to Friday);

Summer – Average Saturday; and

Summer – Average Sunday.

The initial work also looked at a ‘non typical’ day in 2010 for:

May Day Bank Holiday Monday; and

August Bank Holiday Monday.

Further to the interrogation of the TRADS database, a spreadsheet model was built to forecast the

maximum queuing resulting from barrier closures at the level crossings. Inputs to the model included:

Times of closure of the barrier based on the draft Rother Valley Railway (RVR) timetable;

Duration of each closure – assumed to be 51 seconds based on the information provided by ORR/HMIR

(refer to Appendix B of the October 2011 report);

Hourly flows for 2010, in vehicles per minute, at times of barrier closure for each of the average day

types and Bank Holidays referred to above for the spring/autumn and summer periods;

1. Introduction


2


An assumed rate of flow over the crossing after the barrier has been raised. This was assumed to be

one vehicle every 2 seconds or 30 vehicles per minute, based on previous experience; and

Traffic growth rates derived from TEMPRO for 2010 to 2016 and 2010 to 2021.

The model outputs the maximum and average queue lengths in vehicles at the time when the barrier opens

to traffic.

1.2 Review of methodology

The Highways Agency (HA) reviewed the methodology adopted, as outlined in Section 1.1, appraising the

suitability of this approach. In a letter dated 4th May 2012, the HA requested that the assessments should

also consider 2009 and 2011 traffic data.

In addition to examining the 2009 and 2011 data, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), acting as consultants to the

HA, were asked to review the Traffic Impact Study, providing comments on the methodology. An email

from the HA to Mott MacDonald dated 14th September set out PB’s comments, as per Appendix A of this

Supplementary Technical Note. In broad terms, PB’s comments comprised the following:

Assess the worst case weekday and weekend profiles for 2010;

Examine at the upper quartile of weekday and weekend flow data for 2010; and

Apply 112 second closure time to weekday and weekend flows for 2010.

Also of relevance is the distance between the site of the proposed crossing and the proximity of the

Northbridge Street roundabout to the north, which is approximately 140m and also the view “that barrier

closures of 51 and 112 seconds would have no discernible effect on overall journey times in most cases as

drivers would be in a queue anyway” (Section 5.4.2, Rother Valley Railway Proposed Level Crossing

Traffic Impact Assessment, 2011).

These elements will be looked at in turn in the following sections of this report.


3


2.1 Introduction

TRADS data has been downloaded for the following sites:

T/04/215 – southbound on the A21 Robertsbridge Bypass southern section (Grid reference E574125,

N124015); and

T/04/216 – northbound on the A21 Robertsbridge Bypass southern section (Grid reference E574128,

N123929).

At the request of the HA, 2009 and 2011 data has been compared with that of 2010. Monthly data, by

hour, has been compared to assess the variability of traffic flow. It should be noted that Bank Holidays

have been excluded from this exercise, as they can skew results, particularly as there were more Bank

Holidays in 2011.

Traffic data, by month, for each of the three years has been downloaded from TRADS. The average hourly

flow across 24 hours (per month) have been calculated, and it is this that has been compared. Weekdays

and weekends have been compared separately, and all months have been compared.

Sections 2.2 and 2.3 summarise the findings by direction of travel.

2.2 T/04/215 – southbound

Comparing weekdays in 2009 with weekdays in 2010, across the year, there was a 3% decrease in traffic

flow, although traffic flows in the months of February, March, April, June July and October 2010 exhibited

higher flows than in the comparative 2009 months.

Comparing weekends in 2009 with weekends in 2010, traffic flows were 5% higher in 2009.

Comparing weekdays in 2010 with weekdays in 2011, there was a 2% increase.

Comparing weekends in 2010 with weekends in 2011, traffic was 4% higher in 2011.

2. Comparison of 2009 and 2011 data


4


Table 2.1: Comparison of 2009 and 2010 flows - SB

% difference weekdays % difference weekends

Jan -12% -12%

Feb 1% -2%

Mar 1% -2%

Apr 2% 1%

May -1% -4%

Jun 2% -2%

Jul 0% 5%

Aug -3% -8%

Sep -10% -13%

Oct 1% 2%

Nov -2% 0%

Dec -17% -21%

Average -3% -5%

The red highlight denotes months where 2010 had lower flows than 2009 or 2011. Blue denotes months where 2010 had higher flows

than 2009 or 2011. Green denotes no change.

Table 2.2: Comparison of 2010 and 2011 flows - SB


Jan 11% 12%

Feb 7% 3%

Mar -2% 0%

Apr -1% 11%

May -5% -6%

Jun -3% -2%

Jul 0% -4%

Aug -1% -1%

Sep 0% -3%

Oct -2% 2%

Nov -1% 3%

Dec 24% 29%

Average 2% 4%



2.3 T/04/216 – northbound

Comparing weekdays in 2009 with weekdays in 2010, across the year, there was a 5% decrease in traffic

flow. The TRADS data shows that 2009 had slightly higher values than 2010.

Comparing weekends in 2009 with weekends in 2010, traffic flows in 2009 were 7% higher.

Comparing weekdays in 2010 with weekdays in 2011, there was a 1% variation in traffic flow, with 2010

having slightly lower flows.


5


Comparing weekends in 2010 with weekends in 2011, there was a 2% increase in traffic flow, with 2011

having slightly higher values.

Table 2.3: Percentage difference between 2009 and 2010 flows - NB


Jan -11% -16%

Feb -2% -5%

Mar 0% -6%

Apr -2% -2%

May -4% -11%

Jun 1% -3%

Jul 1% 2%

Aug -6% -6%

Sep -11% -15%

Oct -1% 1%

Nov -3% -1%

Dec -17% -23%

Average -5% -7%



Table 2.4: Percentage difference between 2011 and 2010 flows - NB


Jan 11% 12%

Feb 7% -1%

Mar -4% -1%

Apr -2% 3%

May -5% -3%

Jun -4% -5%

Jul -4% -7%

Aug -2% -4%

Sep -2% -2%

Oct -1% 2%

Nov 0% 2%

Dec 23% 28%

Average 1% 2%




6


3.1 Introduction

At the request of PB, the TRADS database has been interrogated to determine the busiest weekday and

weekend for 2010.

A ‘yearly tabular report’ for each of the two sites has been sourced from TRADS. This produces

information by month for each day (24 hours). Weekdays have been isolated from weekend days. Flows

have been ranked by busiest weekday and busiest weekend day, so the highest 24 hour flow could be

identified.

In order to assess a worst case scenario, the highest flows for the northbound and highest flows for the

southbound were identified. The days may not be the same, but in terms of completeness, it was

considered appropriate to determine the worst day for each TRADS site.

The original assessment carried out in October 2011 looked at seasonality and ‘typical’ and ‘non typical’

days, i.e. Bank Holidays were classed as ‘non typical’. PB has requested that the busiest day should be

identified, and for the purpose of this assessment, Bank Holidays have been included.

3.2 T/04/216 – southbound

The busiest weekday for southbound traffic has been determined as Friday 4th June. The busiest

weekend day has been determined as Saturday 28th August. A profile for each day is shown in Figures

3.1 and 3.2.

Figure 3.1: Friday 4th June 2010 – 24 hour profile

Figure 3.2: Saturday 28th

August 2010 – 24 hour profile

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

ve

hic

les

i.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

veh

icle

s

3. Sensitivity test: weekday and weekend – 2010


7


For northbound traffic, the worst weekday was identified as being a Bank Holiday. Therefore, in order to

provide a robust assessment, the second busiest weekday has been identified and assessed.

However, for southbound traffic, the busiest weekday has been identified as being a non Bank Holiday. In

light of this no additional weekday analysis has been undertaken. Section 5 of this report, which examines

the resultant queues from the sensitivity test (e.g worst weekday), does not report on southbound Bank

Holiday queues.

3.3 T/04/216 – northbound

The busiest weekday for northbound traffic has been determined as Monday 3rd

May. The busiest

weekend day has been determined as Sunday 4th July. A profile for each day is shown in Figures 3.3 and

3.4.

Figure 3.3: Monday 3rd

May 2010 – 24 hour profile

Figure 3.4: Sunday 4th July 2010 – 24 hour profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Time

Nu

mb

er

of

ve

hic

les

ii.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Time

Nu

mb

er

of

ve

hic

les

3.4 T/04/2016 – northbound (non bank holiday weekday)

Where the busiest day has been identified as a Bank Holiday, a second day (non Bank Holiday) has been

identified. For northbound traffic, Monday 3rd

May 2010 has the highest flows, but this happens to be a

Bank Holiday. The TRADS data shows that Friday 4th June was the second busiest day in 2010 in terms of

total 24 hour traffic flow. Figure 3.5 shows the daily profile for this data.


8


Figure 3.5: Friday 4th June 2010 – 24 hour profile

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

ve

hic

les

The traffic flows for these identified weekdays and weekend days have been used in the Queue Model,

which was developed during the initial RVR traffic impact assessment work.


9


4.1 Introduction

Further to determining the busiest day and weekend day for both northbound and southbound traffic on the

A21, PB has requested that Mott MacDonald,

“look at the upper quartile of weekend and weekday flow data” (email dated 14 September 2012).

The TRADS data which has been generated in Section 3 has also been used for this exercise. The 24

hour traffic flows have been ranked into ascending order, so that the 75th percentile value can be

determined. From this, the upper quartile can be identified.

The results are shown in Table 4.1

Table 4.1: Upper quartile for 2010

Direction/day 75th percentile flow Busiest 24 hour flow

NB weekday 8,167 10,866

NB weekend b/h 7,886 9,476

NB weekend non b/h 8,167 9,953

SB weekday 8,238 10,246

SB weekend 7,612 9,060

It can be seen that the busiest flows assessed are significantly higher than the 75th percentile.

4. Assessment of upper quartile 2010


10


5.1 Introduction

The Queue Model designed as part of 2011 Mott MacDonald report has been used to assess queue

lengths for the busiest weekday (for northbound this will be for the Bank Holiday and non-Bank Holiday)

and busiest weekend day.

As per Section 4.3 of the October 2011 report,

“Using the 2010 traffic flow data and the traffic growth factors from TEMPRO, a set of forecasts of

traffic queue propagations has been produced…the analysis for the A21 has identified where a traffic

queue at the closed level crossing has the potential to block the upstream roundabout, 140m to the

north of the crossing. For each barrier closure throughout the day, derived from the preliminary

timetable, calculations have been undertaken for each day type…”

The previous work assumed that the traffic volume in a given hour would arrive at the level crossing at a

uniform rate, and a barrier closure period of 51 seconds (0.85 minutes applied). PB has recommended that

a flat or uniform profile should not be used, and that “a worst case scenario of 112 seconds closure time is

applied to the weekday and weekend flows to assess the impact” (email dated 14 September 2012).

5.2 Traffic profile

In order to generate an arrival profile which is not uniform, the peak segment within an hour, e.g. 1045-

1100 in the hour 1000-1100, has been determined. TRADS data is hourly and not by minute; calculating

traffic flows for a non-uniform arrival rate is therefore not possible.

Therefore, to account for the varying arrival time of vehicles, traffic flow per minute for a given hour has

been factored by 20% and 40% in order to model a peaking effect.

5.3 Closure period and assessment year

At the request of PB, a 112 second (1.87 minutes) closure time has been applied to the model.

For the purposes of this assessment, the Queue Model has been run for 2021.

Growth rates have been applied to the 2010 TRADS data. The rates used in the previous work have been

applied to the revised queue model; PB has confirmed that “the use of dataset 62 and NTM factors [are]

acceptable together with associated growth factors” (email dated 14 September 2012).

5.4 Results

Tables 5.1 to 5.3 show the results for three scenarios:

Hourly uniform profile;

Hourly profile with 20% factor; and

Hourly profile with 40% factor.

5. Revised queue model


11


Each of the three scenarios has results for the busiest weekday and busiest weekend day. Furthermore,

the northbound direction has results for a Bank Holiday. This is because the Bank Holiday represents the

busiest weekday.

As discussed in Section 3.2, southbound Bank Holiday queues are not reported.

Table 5.1 shows that for a uniform profile, the maximum queue length predicted by the model is 265m.

When looking at the likely average queue length, southbound traffic for both weekdays and weekends have

an average of queue of 162m, with northbound traffic having an average queue of 149m on weekdays and

152m on weekends.

Table 5.1: Modelling results for 2021 – uniform profile

Day type Northbound Southbound

Maximum queue (m) Average queue (m) Maximum queue (m) Average queue (m)

Weekday (not Bank Holiday)

155 137 177 154

Weekend 198 147 183 148

Bank Holiday 265 205 n/a n/a

Note: All queue lengths are in metres (rounded up to the nearest whole metre)

Table 5.2 shows the results of the plus 20% profile. It can be seen that the maximum queue length on the

busiest day (a Bank Holiday) is predicted to be 383m in 2021; with an average queue length of 247m.

The model shows that on the busiest day (non Bank Holiday), the maximum forecast queue length is 265m

for both northbound and southbound traffic on weekdays and weekends. The model shows average queue

lengths as between 172m and 185m. Weekdays and weekends show very similar results in terms of

forecast traffic queues.

Table 5.2: Modelling results for 2021 – profile plus 20%



Weekday(not Bank Holiday)

265 172 265 185

Weekend 265 172 265 184

Bank holiday 383 247 n/a n/a


Table 5.3 shows the results for 2021 with a plus 40% profile.

Table 5.3: Modelling results for 2021 – profile plus 40%



Weekday(not Bank Holiday)

265 195 265 209

Weekend 277 193 265 208

Bank Holiday 2971 648 n/a n/a



12


The model results indicate a significant increase in Bank Holiday queuing in 2021; with a maximum queue

of 2,971m and an average queue of 648m. The weekday (non-Bank Holiday) and weekend show a slight

increase in queuing when compared to the plus 20% profile.

For the busiest weekday, the model indicates that northbound traffic would have an average queue length

of 195m and southbound traffic would have an average queue length of 209m.

For the busiest weekend day, the model indicates that northbound traffic would have an average queue

length of 193m and southbound traffic would have an average queue length of 208m.

In summation, applying the busiest weekday and weekend day to the queue model, queues would extend

north beyond the Northbridge Street roundabout for southbound traffic. Furthermore, as stated in Section

4.4 of the previous Mott MacDonald report: -

“It should be borne in mind that although the proposed level crossings would impact on the free flow

of traffic level crossing this would not occur every day. The 2011 schedule of days of operation of

the KESR indicates that trains will run on 181 days of the year, i.e. approximately 50%. As noted

previously the RVR would run to a similar schedule”. Further details of this can be found in the

October 2011 report.

A second important point noted by the previous work stated that: -

“the presence of the [level] crossing would have little noticeable effect on overall journey times,

given the signification congestion that currently occurs on the A21”.

It is also noted that at the busiest bank holiday periods, vehicles held at the level crossing released to

proceed in effect move forward to rejoin the rear of the traffic queue they were already following –

excepting that a number of cars will have been assisted in joining the A21 traffic flow from side road

connections to the A21 using any queue gap that is created for a distance either side of the level crossing.


13


This Technical Note (TN) has been completed to address the comments provided by the Highways Agency

(HA) and Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), based on the Mott MacDonald report issued in October 2011. The

following sets out the key findings of this TN:

6.1 General

Comparing 2010 TRADS data with 2009 and 2011 data, the variation across the years is between +/-

2% and +/- 7%.

The busiest weekday for southbound traffic is determined as Friday 4th June and the busiest weekend

day is determined as Saturday 28th July.

The busiest weekday for northbound traffic is determined as Monday 3rd

May and the busiest weekend

day is determined as Sunday 4th July. Monday 3

rd May was a Bank Holiday, hence this could be

classed as ‘non typical’. The second busiest weekday was Friday 4th June.

Trains would normally run on about 50% of the days of the year with typically seven trains operating per

day in both directions during the summer months. Trains would not generally start running until after

10:00 and would continue throughout the day at around hourly intervals until approximately 18:00.

In 2010, the busiest average hour for weekday traffic in a southbound direction was 1700-1800. The

busiest average hour for weekend traffic in a southbound direction was 1200-1300.

In 2010, the busiest average hour for weekday traffic in a northbound direction was 0700-0800. The

busiest average hour for weekend traffic in a northbound direction was 1000-1100.

All modelling results are for the year 2021, using the approved growth rates.

Based on comments from PB, the level crossing barrier has been assessed for closure period of 112

seconds (1.87 minutes).

Traffic is forecast to grow by between 8-11% from 2010 up to 2021 (as detailed in the Mott MacDonald

October 2011 report).

6.2 Queuing

It is important to note from Section 5.4.2, Rother Valley Railway Proposed Level Crossing Traffic Impact

Assessment, 2011, that despite the queue model showing traffic exceeding 140m north of the crossing: -

“long queues currently occur on occasions on the A21, particularly at Bank Holidays, and this would

occur in the future irrespective of whether or not a level crossing was present”

Key findings from this TN show that:

The longest forecast traffic queue, on a typical day, is estimated to be on a weekday in the southbound

direction (with a 40% profile uplift), with average forecast queue lengths of 209m.

The busiest weekday, with a 20% profile uplift, was in the southbound direction, with a predicted

average queue of 185m (maximum queue of 265m).

The busiest weekend day, with a 20% profile applied was in the southbound direction, with a predicted

average queue of 184m (maximum queue of 265m).

In light of these key findings, the capacity of the A21 was exceeded in 2010 and a flow of 1,649 vph would

have caused notable congestion anyway on the A21. “Barrier closures of 51 and 112 seconds would have

no discernible effect on overall journey times in most cases as drivers would be in a queue anyway”

(Section 5.4.2, Rother Valley Railway Proposed Level Crossing Traffic Impact Assessment, 2011).

6. Summary


14


Appendix A. Correspondence ___________________________________________________________________ 15

Appendices


15


Appendix A. Correspondence


Personal Injury Accident Analysis Technical Note

January 2013


313090 ITD ITQ 004 D

25 January 2013


Personal Injury Accident Analysis Technical Note

January 2013









A 15.11.12 B A Pledge M D Lewis M D Lewis First Issue

B 11.12.12 B A Pledge M D Lewis M D Lewis Second Issue

C 17.01.13 B A Pledge M D Lewis R E Murdock Third Issue

D 25.01.13 B A Pledge M D Lewis R E Murdock Fourth Issue










parties




commissioned it.

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013


Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Analysis of PIA Data 2

2.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 2 2.1.1 Site 1: Rail level crossing at Cooksbridge _________________________________________________ 2 2.1.2 Site 2: Rail level crossing at Etchingham _________________________________________________ 2 2.1.3 Site 3: Rail level crossing at Lyminster ___________________________________________________ 3 2.1.4 Site 4: Rail level crossing at Robertsbridge________________________________________________ 3 2.1.5 Site 5: Rail level crossing at Woodgate ___________________________________________________ 3 2.1.6 Site 6: Rail level crossing at Drayton Lane ________________________________________________ 3 2.1.7 Site 7: Proposed Rail level crossing site at Robertsbridge ____________________________________ 4 2.2 Proposed investigation of Rail level crossing site at A487 Porthmadog __________________________ 4

3. Level Crossing Safety Reports 5

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 7

Content

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

1


1.1 Overview

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by Rother Valley Railway Limited (RVRL) to undertake a number

of highway, traffic and road safety analyses in support of a proposed railway level crossing of the A21 at

Robertsbridge, East Sussex.

This Technical Note examines the personal injury accident (PIA) data for a range of sites which exhibit

similar characteristics to the proposed site at Robertsbridge. The purpose of this is to see to what extent, if

any, the presence of the level crossing, is considered to be a contributory factor.

In addition, reference is also made within this report to railway industry reports concerning railway level

crossing safety performance.

Seven sites have been identified in collaboration with RVR and these are outlined in the following table: -

Site

No. Site Name Road Location / Town Site OSGR

PIA Search Criteria

(5 years data 01/01/2007 to

31/12/2011)

1 Rail level crossing at Cooksbridge

A275 Cooksbridge Nr Lewes

540093; 113435

A275 only – 250m radius search of level crossing

2 Rail level crossing at Etchingham

A265 Haremere Hill, Etchingham

571517; 126263


3 Rail level crossing at Lyminster

A284 Lyminster, Nr Littlehampton

502722; 103881


4 Rail level crossing at Robertsbridge

Brightling Road/Station Road

Station Road, Robertsbridge

573313; 123213

Brightling Rd/Station Rd only – 250m radius search

of level crossing

5 Rail level crossing at Woodgate

A29 Lidsey Road, Chichester

493797; 104325


6 Rail level crossing at Drayton

B2144 Drayton Lane, Chichester

489049; 104414

B2144 only – 250m radius search of level crossing

7 Proposed rail level crossing A21, near Robertsbridge

A21(T) North of Robertsbridge

574118; 124080

A21 only – 250m radius search of OSGR co-

ordinates

Table 1-1: List of sites featuring PIA analysis

1. Introduction

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

2


2.1 Overview

PIA data has been obtained from the Road Policing Unit, Sussex Police. At each site, detailed in the table

above, a search for PIA records occurring between 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2011 (latest five years’ of data

available) has been requested.

Where there are sites with an existing rail level crossing (Sites 1 to 5) a circle search radius of 250 metres

has been used and a full narrative report was provided. From these narrative reports, PIAs involving the

operation of the rail level crossing have been analysed further, to determine weather it was a contributory

factor in the accident.

At the proposed rail level crossing site on the A21 near Robertsbridge (Site 7), a search radius of 250

metres has also been used. All accidents occurring with the five-year period are described within this

Technical Note.

All accidents occurring with the five year period are described within this section of this Technical Note.

2.1.1 Site 1: Rail level crossing at Cooksbridge

Location: A275 Cooksbridge, Nr Lewes (E540093; N113435). Total PIAs in five-year search: 4 (0 Fatal, 1

Serious, 3 Slight).

Two of the PIAs (both Slight) involved stationary traffic due the level crossing being in operation.

One was side impact accident, occurring after being beckoned out from a side road (in traffic).

The other was on approach to the level crossing, travelling too fast, and colliding with a stationary

queuing vehicle.

2.1.2 Site 2: Rail level crossing at Etchingham

Location: A265 Haremere Hill, Etchingham (E571517; N126263). Total PIAs in five-year search: 0 (0 Fatal,

0 Serious, 0 Slight).

No PIAs recorded.

2. Analysis of PIA Data

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

3


2.1.3 Site 3: Rail level crossing at Lyminster

Location: A284 Lyminster, Nr Littlehampton (E502722; N103881). Total PIAs in five-year search: 5 (0 Fatal,


None of the PIAs were considered to be related to the operation of the Level Crossing.

2.1.4 Site 4: Rail level crossing at Robertsbridge

Location: adjacent to Network Rail Station, Station Road, Robertsbridge (E573313; N123213). Total PIAs

in five-year search: 1 (1 Fatal, 1 Serious, 0 Slight).

One PIA was recorded and this is deemed to be in relation to the Level Crossing.

Fatal accident involving a car passing through the Level Crossing at excessive speed. The vehicle

was travelling east when it grounded on the railway section and lost control. This resulted in a

collision with seven parked cars, and the fatality of one pedestrian and slight injury to another.

2.1.5 Site 5: Rail level crossing at Woodgate

Location: A29 Lidsey Road, Chichester (E493797; N104325). Total PIAs in five-year search: 5 (0 Fatal, 2

Serious, 3 Slight).

None of the PIAs were considered to be related to the operation of the Level Crossing.

2.1.6 Site 6: Rail level crossing at Drayton Lane

Location: B2144 Drayton Lane, Chichester (E489049; N104414). Total PIAs in five-year search: 5 (0 Fatal,


One PIA (Slight) involved stationary traffic due the level crossing being in operation.

Rear end shunt type accident in northbound traffic queue at the level crossing.

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

4


2.1.7 Site 7: Proposed Rail level crossing site at Robertsbridge

Location: A21 North of Robertsbridge (E574118; N124080). Total PIAs in five-year search: 3 (0 Fatal, 2

Serious, 1 Slight).

The details for all three PIAs that occurred near the proposed rail level site are as follows:

Occurring on the A21 southbound, approx 170m north of the junction with Redlands Lane. Slight

injuries were sustained to both car drivers a vehicle (V1) overtook another (V2) on the hatched

separation markings. V2 pulled nearside, causing it to swerve and collide with V1. V1 overturns

and V2 strikes the nearside barrier.

Occurring on the A21 southbound, north of the Northbridge Street Roundabout. Serious accident

after a motorcyclist (V1) attempted to overtake a car (V2) prior to roundabout. V2 turned right to

access the offside (northbound) lay-by, causing V1 to collide in its side. Rider of V1 received

serious injuries.

Occurring on the A21 northbound, just north of the Northbridge Street Roundabout. Serious injuries

caused to a solo motorcyclist when re-starting after stalling. Due to vehicle defect (throttle stuck

open) the motorcycle collided with pedestrian guard rail.

2.2 Proposed investigation of Rail level crossing site at A487

Porthmadog

It was suggested in the Highways Agency letter dated 4th May 2012 that the A487 Porthmadog Heritage

Railway level crossing might provide a suitable comparison for the RVR proposals. The A487 level

crossing is built tramway style whereby the railway runs along the centre of the highway, in the same

direction as the road traffic, rather than across the highway at an acute angle as is more normal and as the

RVR proposals. The Porthmadog level crossing brings with it entirely different safety considerations such

as cyclists running along the line of the railway if they do not follow the alternative safe signposted route. In

addition, the Porthmadog crossing does not have any form of barriers / gates to close off the highway and

footways while the road is being crossed by a train.

The level crossings proposed for RVR are modern crossings where the railway crosses over the road at an

acute angle and incorporate full barriers. There is no commonality between the A487 Porthmadog crossing

and those proposed for RVR.

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

5


The type of level crossings proposed by RVR are of the Full Barrier type, locally monitored and controlled

by a railway signalman. These are also classified as MCG, MOB and MOB-CACTV crossing in the reports

referred to below.

The perceived generalised dangers associated with railway level crossings come primarily from accidents

at ‘open’ level crossings, half-barrier level crossings, automatically operated (unmonitored) level crossing

and user worked crossings.

Full Barrier level crossings are used extensively, including such as the East Coast mainline with trains

operating at 125 mph.

3-1: Example of typical East Coast Main Line Level Crossing

Source: Rother Valley Railway Limited

Two learned reports provide a useful detailed overview of railway level crossing data: -

• Railway Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) (a UK Government Agency). Study of 'Open' crossings – but that contains detailed comparative performance data for full barrier crossings – as the type proposed by RVR. That report is at:

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/110728_R122011_AOCLs_Class_Inv.pdf

The RAIB general website is at: http://www.raib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

3. Level Crossing Safety Reports

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

6


• Centre for Transport Studies : Andrew W Evans Imperial College London

This paper investigates level crossing performance over the period 1946 to 2009. That report is at:

http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchActivities/publicationDetails.asp?Publ icationID=1432

As in both the above studies, locally monitored Full Barrier Level Crossings (also classified as MCG, MOB

& MOB-CACTV crossings in these reports) have and excellent safety performance record.

There do not appear to be any full barrier level crossings currently installed on heritage railways. Heritage

railways operate at maximum speeds of 25mph, being very much lower than generally seen on mainline

Network Rail level crossings. That lower speed must by nature mean that a heritage railway full barrier

crossing will perform even better, because of reduced train stopping distances than those studied in the

above learned reports.

The proposed Rother Valley Railway level crossings will operate with maximum train speeds set by

agreement with the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR). Train speed on the whole line is a maximum speed

of 25mph, and are anticipated to be set in the region of +/- 15mph at the level crossings, assisting trains to

stop on sight of the crossing being blocked for any reason.

The Kent & East Sussex Railway operates the existing railway from Tenterden to Bodiam (where it will join

the Rother Valley Railway). It has several level crossings, including over two ‘A’ roads that all use

traditional hand worked level crossing gates to close off the highway and footpath.

313090/ITD/ITQ/004/D 25 January 2013

7


The broad conclusions of this Technical Note are as follows: -

1. The choice of those level crossing sites reviewed in detail above, has been directed by RVR, who

considered that they have representative characteristics similar to those exhibited by the proposed

RVR level crossing site on the A21 at Robertsbridge.

2. Full barrier level crossings are demonstrated in the report and associated learned studies as

having a good accident record.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations


Journey Time Analysis Technical Note

January 2013


313090 ITD ITQ 007 C

17 January 2013


Journey Time Analysis Technical Note

January 2013









A 15.11.12 B A Pledge M D Lewis M D Lewis First Issue

B 12.12.12 B A Pledge M D Lewis M D Lewis Second Issue

C 17.01.13 B A Pledge M D Lewis R E Murdock Third Issue










parties




commissioned it.

313090/ITD/ITQ/007/C 17 January 2013


Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Analysis of Journey Time Data 2

2.1 Overview __________________________________________________________________________ 2

3. Conclusions 3

Content

313090/ITD/ITQ/007/C 17 January 2013

1


1.1 Overview

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by Rother Valley Railway (RVR) to undertake a number of

highway, traffic and road safety analyses in support of a proposed railway level crossing of the A21 at

Robertsbridge, East Sussex.

This Technical Note displays and examines the Journey Time data undertaken on a series of surveys that

were completed on Tuesday 23 October 2012. The purpose of this is to see how journey times could be

affected, should vehicles use the alternative route via Robertsbridge village, to avoid the proposed level

crossing.

Four routes were surveyed (two northbound and two southbound). These are outlined in the following

table:-

Route Route Description Start point End point

A A21(T) mainline, from north to south (through the proposed level crossing).

Passing the A21 north lay-by entrance

A21 southbound exit at A2100/A21 Vinehall Road

Roundabout

B Via Robertsbridge village, from north to south (avoiding the proposed level crossing)

Passing A21 north lay-by entrance

A21 southbound exit at A2100/A21 Vinehall Road

Roundabout

C A21(T) mainline, from south to north (through the proposed level crossing).

A21 southbound exit at A2100/A21 Vinehall Road Roundabout

Passing the A21 north lay-by entrance

D Via Robertsbridge village, from south to north (avoiding the proposed level crossing)

A21 southbound exit at A2100/A21 Vinehall Road Roundabout

Passing A21 north lay-by entrance

Table 1-1: List of journey time survey routes

The routes are shown in Figure 1.2 below: -

1. Introduction

313090/ITD/ITQ/007/C 17 January 2013

2


2.1 Overview

After examining the historic tidal traffic flow from TRADS database, three separate time periods were

determined to record journey time data. They were as follows;

Morning traffic peak (07:00 – 08:00hrs);

Off peak (10:00 – 11:00hrs), and;

Evening traffic peak (17:00 – 18:00hrs).

For each route surveyed (A, B C and D) several ‘runs’ were completed within the different time periods, to record journey times in varying traffic conditions. The table below displays the average time to complete each route:

Average time to complete route (mins:secs)

Route Morning peak Off peak Evening peak

A 03:51 03:41 03:57

B 06:12 04:27 05:51

C 03:21 03:13 03.13

D 04:43 04:48 04:44

*Green denotes the longest time taken to complete route.

The standard deviation for the journey times has been calculated and the variance from the mean has been

determined. There is a high confidence that journey times on this route fall within +/- 1 standard deviation

of the mean journey time. This suggest that the reliability of the journey along the A21 is not significantly

variable, based in the data recorded.

2. Analysis of Journey Time Data

313090/ITD/ITQ/007/C 17 January 2013

3


The journey time surveys were conducted on a single day and comprised four runs northbound and

southbound on Routes A, B, C and D respectively during the AM peak.

A further two runs, northbound and southbound, were conducted in the inter-peak, per direction on routes A

- D (inclusive).

Finally, a further four runs were conducted, northbound and southbound, on routes A – D (inclusive for the

PM peak.

The broad conclusions that can be drawn are that, the sample sizes, whilst not numerous, indicate, not

unsurprisingly, that the route along the A21 Robertsbridge Bypass, is significantly quicker than that via the

C18 Northbridge Street.

The increase in journey time is similar to the period the crossing is closed to road traffic, leaving aside the

fact that a west-bound train will also cause the C18 Northbridge Street crossing to be closed. Furthermore,

traffic attempting this would encounter the lead vehicle of the platoon of traffic released from the A21

crossing leading to delays re-entering the A21.

Therefore, it is considered that there is no time advantage for A21 traffic diverting via the C18 through

Robertsbridge when the proposed level crossing barriers are closed.

3. Conclusions